K
kozlosap
Guest
Of course, unless, you are gay, then you are living in another reality that means you might love someone that according to the rad tears isn’t real even if you have a civil marriage.
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
Depends on who you marry. If you marry a younger woman, procreation would not be out of the question. But without respect to procreation at all, if a man and a woman marry, they will be able to have marital relations by the simple fact of their sexual complementarity. A same sex couple could never have marital relations no matter what; consequently it is not a marriage.At the very advanced age of 61, if I was to marry, it certainly would not be for purposes of procreation. It would be for love. In order to be able to argue against marriage equality, there needs to be a different rationale used, especially in the 21st century developed world.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Marriage was designed by God to be one man and one woman committed to each other for life. It is a divine institution which cannot be changed.
Two men together or two women together is not marriage. Call it whatever you want but it cannot be called marriage. It does not matter what the secular government calls it or what society tells us. No one can support gay marriage because such a thing does not exist.
The term “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. Something which doesn’t exist cannot be supported. No one has a right to something which does not exist.
-Tim-
Two men together or two women together is not marriage. Call it whatever you want but it cannot be called marriage. It does not matter what the secular government calls it or what society tells us. No one can support gay marriage because such a thing does not exist.
The term “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. Something which doesn’t exist cannot be supported. No one has a right to something which does not exist.
-Tim-
E
Ejperchenough
Guest
C
clem456
Guest
I am confused with the term “rad tears” so I don’t understand your post.Of course, unless, you are gay, then you are living in another reality that means you might love someone that according to the rad tears isn’t real even if you have a civil marriage.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I think he meant to use a derogatory term for people that are faithful to the Church.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Same sex folks can’t be married, regardless of what the state calls their relationship. As a single Dad, I object more to the concept of folks deliberately choosing to deprive a child of a father or mother from the get-go. The family is where a child learns about relationships between men and women, they learn it by observation of the example the man and woman set for them. Two men can’t do that, two women can’t do that. Look throughout all of history and you will find that no society has existed which did not have marriage between men and women and the family as it’s foundational unit.
In the US, we do have the principle in the constitution
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …"
So, if I expect the government to stay out of my religion and allow me to freely exercise it, than I do have to defend that right for others. Even others whose religions allow practises I disagree with. Problem, as cited above, is that laws are based on core morality/principles that are foundational to society. We’ve set out upon a social experiment with same-sex couples raising children with very little idea to understand the consequences. Too early to understand it, and studies have differed depending on who has sponsored them. We do know we’re going where no society has gone before, will society’s interest be best promoted by this development. I sincerely doubt it, again based on my experiences as a single father and the data we now have for the children of single mothers. Regardless of social class or income level, those children experience higher rates of verbal, physical and sexual abuse. They have higher rates of substance abuse and greater involvement in violence as both perpetrators and victims. The highest risk to them is the non-biologically related men in their mother’s lives.
All that said, I certainly don’t support gay rights to marriage. I also don’t support no-fault divorce and the lower income spouse being able to decide to refuse to meet the commitments and obligations of marriage yet still demand the financial benefits of it.
But given the politics and principles of the US, I think one solution legally would be to eliminate the state involvement in marriage and leave that to religions. The state should stop granting marriage licenses and using family courts to oversee the dissolution of marriages. The state should shift to allowing people to enter into legal partnerships via contracts with the specifics spelled out in the terms of each contract, including the ending/disestablishing the contract. Marriage would then become whatever religious ceremony of the participants honoring and abiding by it in accordance with their religious beliefs. Children will suffer from it, but it seems most folks in the US don’t really care about that. It’s all about me, me, me and what I want regardless of it’s affect on others. I want to be dad/mother but I don’t want to form a family and ensure my children have both mom/dad.
In the US, we do have the principle in the constitution
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …"
So, if I expect the government to stay out of my religion and allow me to freely exercise it, than I do have to defend that right for others. Even others whose religions allow practises I disagree with. Problem, as cited above, is that laws are based on core morality/principles that are foundational to society. We’ve set out upon a social experiment with same-sex couples raising children with very little idea to understand the consequences. Too early to understand it, and studies have differed depending on who has sponsored them. We do know we’re going where no society has gone before, will society’s interest be best promoted by this development. I sincerely doubt it, again based on my experiences as a single father and the data we now have for the children of single mothers. Regardless of social class or income level, those children experience higher rates of verbal, physical and sexual abuse. They have higher rates of substance abuse and greater involvement in violence as both perpetrators and victims. The highest risk to them is the non-biologically related men in their mother’s lives.
All that said, I certainly don’t support gay rights to marriage. I also don’t support no-fault divorce and the lower income spouse being able to decide to refuse to meet the commitments and obligations of marriage yet still demand the financial benefits of it.
But given the politics and principles of the US, I think one solution legally would be to eliminate the state involvement in marriage and leave that to religions. The state should stop granting marriage licenses and using family courts to oversee the dissolution of marriages. The state should shift to allowing people to enter into legal partnerships via contracts with the specifics spelled out in the terms of each contract, including the ending/disestablishing the contract. Marriage would then become whatever religious ceremony of the participants honoring and abiding by it in accordance with their religious beliefs. Children will suffer from it, but it seems most folks in the US don’t really care about that. It’s all about me, me, me and what I want regardless of it’s affect on others. I want to be dad/mother but I don’t want to form a family and ensure my children have both mom/dad.
C
clem456
Guest
Same sex couples might love one another, but it is not conjugal love.Of course, unless, you are gay, then you are living in another reality that means you might love someone that according to the rad tears isn’t real even if you have a civil marriage.
What is conjugal love? How do we know what it is?
God is love. God is three persons, united as one. This love pours itself out. It creates. It creates not just in a spiritual way, but in a material way as well. Unity. Creativity. God’s Trinitarian love is the model and source of conjugal love.
Ephesians 5 tells us that spouses love one another (specifically husbands) as Christ loves the Church. Christ gives himself fully for his bride. He unites us, and the cross is the tree of life. Conjugal love is a full and complete giving in that way.
A
aicirt
Guest
Homosexuals adopt. Catholic Charities refuses to allow this and, consequently, in many areas, are no longer an adoption agency.
Homosexuals can obtain sperm either through a friend or from a sperm bank.
If a homosexual couple has a child or children, do you think they wouldn’t encourage homosexual behavior in these children? Seriously, how could they not do so?
A
aicirt
Guest
Yes, children are apart of marriage. So if they’re married, homosexuals want the same rights. ergo, children.
O
OurLadysServant
Guest
Be catholic my friend! The true church founded by Jesus himself and passed down from the apostles! We have Jesus in the Eucharist, and there have been 300 miracles where the Eucharist has turned miraculously in Jesus actual flesh and blood and remained incorrupt until this day , even after 500 years. Two were tested against each other by scientists, one Eucharist was 300 years older than the other and they were proven to be human blood of the same person, incorrupt, and of the heart tissue, blood type AB. And blood type AB is proven on the Shroud of Turin!
Homosexuality is a mortal sin because: God made men and women naturally to marry and create children. Because love of a man and man is carnal, purely sexual, at some level at least. Even if they adopt. Because their love and intimacy is a grave disordered misuse of God’s plan for mankind. God wants mums and dads married. If the whole world turns gay where will children come from? It is impure because it is breaking of the commandment not to commit adultery -only a married man and woman can have ‘intimate relations’ and love each other that way . Everyone else is called to be single, or relgious/ priesthood. These are the only vocations God has given the church . Test tube babies are also a mortal sin because it is outside of marriage (donors sperm, which if it came from masturbation is another mortal sin, if it was taken surgically it’s a mortal sin because it’s sti a form of adultery outside of marriage even without the intimacy) and can take a number of attempts (which ends up killing babies in the failed attempts to get pregnant).
Jesus warned about the end of times in the acts of the apostles and letters of the apostles in the New Testament: ‘homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God. (Heaven).’ ‘they will be thrown into the outer darkness, (Hell) where there wi be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
St Catherine of Sienna was a saint who had visions of God, she was shown that when two gay people have ‘relations’ it’s such a disordered use of nature that the evil spirits themselves leave and cannot bear to be present.
I am not judging gay people or anyone involved in the sins mentioned. I know it’s been scientifically proven that peoe can be born with too many of the male or female hormone and this effects their attraction to men or women. I do not know what has happened in other lives to make them the way they are or what temptations they have been exposed to. As Pope Francis says we cannot judge. But he so said it is wrong. Jesus teaches they should ‘Abstain from unchastity.’ And fight this temptation even if they have to live with it.
QUOTE=Renarax;12473807]Hello
I’d like to begin by saying I was born as a non Christian religion (but was basically deist all the while since my parents religion made no sense to me) Now I have decided to become Christian and I’m trying to decide on orthodox or catholic. Oh yeah and I’m not gay.
I just wanted your opinion on this topic. Whether it’s sinful or not.
I genuinely feel that people can love anyone they want and should have the right to marry the ones who they love. While I certainly don’t condone it I’d go to one if I was invited (as long as the minister isn’t actually a priest.)
I mean they don’t have to get married in a christian style wedding right?
I’ve begun noticing that many Christians have started to support it. What about you?
Homosexuality is a mortal sin because: God made men and women naturally to marry and create children. Because love of a man and man is carnal, purely sexual, at some level at least. Even if they adopt. Because their love and intimacy is a grave disordered misuse of God’s plan for mankind. God wants mums and dads married. If the whole world turns gay where will children come from? It is impure because it is breaking of the commandment not to commit adultery -only a married man and woman can have ‘intimate relations’ and love each other that way . Everyone else is called to be single, or relgious/ priesthood. These are the only vocations God has given the church . Test tube babies are also a mortal sin because it is outside of marriage (donors sperm, which if it came from masturbation is another mortal sin, if it was taken surgically it’s a mortal sin because it’s sti a form of adultery outside of marriage even without the intimacy) and can take a number of attempts (which ends up killing babies in the failed attempts to get pregnant).
Jesus warned about the end of times in the acts of the apostles and letters of the apostles in the New Testament: ‘homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God. (Heaven).’ ‘they will be thrown into the outer darkness, (Hell) where there wi be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
St Catherine of Sienna was a saint who had visions of God, she was shown that when two gay people have ‘relations’ it’s such a disordered use of nature that the evil spirits themselves leave and cannot bear to be present.
I am not judging gay people or anyone involved in the sins mentioned. I know it’s been scientifically proven that peoe can be born with too many of the male or female hormone and this effects their attraction to men or women. I do not know what has happened in other lives to make them the way they are or what temptations they have been exposed to. As Pope Francis says we cannot judge. But he so said it is wrong. Jesus teaches they should ‘Abstain from unchastity.’ And fight this temptation even if they have to live with it.
QUOTE=Renarax;12473807]Hello
I’d like to begin by saying I was born as a non Christian religion (but was basically deist all the while since my parents religion made no sense to me) Now I have decided to become Christian and I’m trying to decide on orthodox or catholic. Oh yeah and I’m not gay.
I just wanted your opinion on this topic. Whether it’s sinful or not.
I genuinely feel that people can love anyone they want and should have the right to marry the ones who they love. While I certainly don’t condone it I’d go to one if I was invited (as long as the minister isn’t actually a priest.)
I mean they don’t have to get married in a christian style wedding right?
I’ve begun noticing that many Christians have started to support it. What about you?
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
My position is not based on what-ifs. I was posing those questions to the OP, because he said that anyone who loves someone else should be able to marry that person. I was curious to see if his position extended to these types of situations, since he did say “anyone.”
If one is going to advocate for radically redefining marriage so that a man may “marry” a man or a woman a woman, then he should ask himself why. If it is because these two people love each other, then is it okay for any two people who love each other to marry? If not, then why? Where do we draw a line, and why? For that matter, why is marriage limited to two people and not more?
These are all important questions to ask, and not mere “what-ifs.” Really, it all boils down to the question of what marriage is, and what its purpose is.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Well, I don’t necessarily think that’s true. A gay couple in my old neighborhood had a son. The boy (~10) wanted a red BMX bike for his birthday. They chose to buy him (I am not making this up) sparkly purple cruiser style bike with streamers from the handle-bars.
He said thanks, rode it to his friend’s house where he cut off the streamer and painted that SOB red with a spray can. I think he’ll be in rebellion against his dads values his entire life.
However, every child of a gay couple is deprived of a mom or a dad. It is a fundamental human drive to want a relationship with one’s biological parents. Adopted kids, no matter how happy or stable seem driven to find out about their biological parents and know their history, their origins. Now, the child of a gay couple can pretty easily come to the conclusion that no matter how much their ‘parents’ love them, to the missing biological parent they were nothing but a product. Something to be sold or given away, no emotional attachment love or concern from that biological parent at all. That’s a pretty stunning realization to deal with-- I am just a product. I was something to feed my parent’s ego that this other person was willing to provide as a service, as a product.
theothersideofsurrogacy.blogspot.com/
sonofasurrogate.tripod.com/
anonymousus.org/stories/index.php?cid=2
C
clem456
Guest
What the gay marriage agenda seems to be seeking is sameness, not equality. I have had several discussions with proponents who deny that homosexuality and heterosexuality are different in any way. It is a fundamental misunderstanding between what it means to be “equal” in human dignity and human rights under the law and in God’s eyes, and to be “the same” regardless of behavior.
This is a deception. We should acknowledge (doesn’t mean accept) the relationships that gay couples have with one another. Gay couples may have deep relationships and love one another in other ways, but it is not the same thing as a hetero relationship. I think it is a tragedy that people are unable to make that unavoidable distinction.
J
johnnyt3000
Guest
Supporting the homosexual “marriage”/lifestyle, even a little bit, is a grave sin. About your discernment between Catholic and Orthodox, remember in Matthew 16:18, Jesus gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The word “Peter” means “Rock”. St. Peter was the first Pope. In fact, before St. Peter’s remains were found underneath the Basilica in the 20th century, it was a tradition that he was buried there. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ Himself. The Orthodox broke away around 1054.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
:dts: :nope:
E
EasterJoy
Guest
What’s with the shrug? Don’t tell us there are no marriages that *you *wouldn’t recognize as valid. If some guy has two wives and two families in two different cities, you wouldn’t recognize the second marriage as a marriage. One is bigamous, and no marriage at all, even though the bigamous party is responsible for the children. The emotions between the man and woman have nothing to do with it. He is married to the woman he married legally, not the one he likes better.Of course, unless, you are gay, then you are living in another reality that means you might love someone that according to the rad tears isn’t real even if you have a civil marriage.
If you were to think he is “really” married to the woman he likes better, the one he calls his “soul mate,” and not the one with whom he exchanged vows first, then you have a concept of “marriage” built on romantic sand. It is no commitment at all.
R
Rau
Guest
Your post says a few different things:
Yes, subject to what form the ‘love’ takes, and one’s existing status eg. an existing marital relationship forbids another.
No, marriage is a very particular relationship - a sexual relationship between man and woman through which the community, the family of man, builds itself. I don’t see merit in the State forbidding same sex relationships, but I object to the State acclaiming and endorsing same sex relationships. This makes no sense to me. I have no issue with the State providing legal frameworks, to the extent necessary to meet reasonable needs for people to share assets, take legal first of kin type roles, care for each other, etc.
It would be helpful if you explained what you understand ‘marriage’ to be and the **purposes **for which the State should make **it **available to other than “1 man + 1 woman”.
You didn’t tell us why you don’t condone it.
A
aicirt
Guest
The laws against certain unions were enacted for reasons that are now obscure. During Roman times, soldiers could not marry. This changed when the state became Christian. Laws were enacted thousands of years ago blocking the marriages of children or the sexual abuse of children and of women. There are reasons why we have laws against incest and other perversions.
If homosexuals can wed, why can’t a man have more than one wife. He’s an adult as are the women he wants to marry. They’re consent adults doing no harm to anyone. There is actually a case where a man is suing for the right to marry his daughter. You have NAMBLA which advocates sex between men and minors. How about a man having sex with an animal? The man is an adult, he’s not harming a person. Could he possibly be harming the animal? Why does society care about this?
Think about this: The US denied Utah statehood unless the Mormons gave up the practice of polygamy. Today, we allow thousands of Muslims into our country knowing they will keep multiple wives and, consequently, have many children. Will our society change because of this? So if the Muslims can do it, why can’t the ordinary Joe have multiple wives?
And here’s another back on topic: Christian judges are resigning because they refuse to marry homosexuals. This causes a vaccum in the judicial system. You will not have Christian judges. That vaccum will be filled with liberal judges.
If homosexuals can wed, why can’t a man have more than one wife. He’s an adult as are the women he wants to marry. They’re consent adults doing no harm to anyone. There is actually a case where a man is suing for the right to marry his daughter. You have NAMBLA which advocates sex between men and minors. How about a man having sex with an animal? The man is an adult, he’s not harming a person. Could he possibly be harming the animal? Why does society care about this?
Think about this: The US denied Utah statehood unless the Mormons gave up the practice of polygamy. Today, we allow thousands of Muslims into our country knowing they will keep multiple wives and, consequently, have many children. Will our society change because of this? So if the Muslims can do it, why can’t the ordinary Joe have multiple wives?
And here’s another back on topic: Christian judges are resigning because they refuse to marry homosexuals. This causes a vaccum in the judicial system. You will not have Christian judges. That vaccum will be filled with liberal judges.
R
Renarax
Guest
Look I understand where you guys are coming from but maybe I see it differently. We are seeing it through christian eyes (as we are) and hence a christian marriage is invalid.
But perhaps for them marriage is something else entirely. Perhaps it’s just a legal/psychological confirmation for them to show their commitment. They may not necessarily see it as a sacrament as we do. So why not just be happy for their commitment?
And for those who replied about the catholic-orthodox thing, thanks. The thing is the most simple arguments sway me over to the other side. It’s complicated really
but I’m still undecided. I can explain later
But perhaps for them marriage is something else entirely. Perhaps it’s just a legal/psychological confirmation for them to show their commitment. They may not necessarily see it as a sacrament as we do. So why not just be happy for their commitment?
And for those who replied about the catholic-orthodox thing, thanks. The thing is the most simple arguments sway me over to the other side. It’s complicated really
but I’m still undecided. I can explain later- Status